alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 50571.

#### Protests 61196-K, etc., of Perry H. Chipurnoi et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.
No. 47503.

#### Protests 914813-G, etc., of S. Nathan & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

The only question in this case is whether the stones are cut, it being conceded that they are imitation precious stones and that they are not faceted. The record consists of the testimony of two witnesses, one for the plaintiff and one for the defendant, and several exhibits. Both witnesses seemed to agree as to the method of manufacture of these stones. However, at one point they disagree. It appears that in the course of pressing the merchandise in molds some of the molten glass laps over the edges of the mold, giving the stones irregular shapes and causing the edges to become roughened. To remove this roughness and to give it a smooth edge an additional finishing operation is necessary. Whether or not this finishing operation produces a “cut” stone is the point on which the witnesses disagree. Plaintiff’s witness testified that it is a cutting process, while defendant’s witness described it as a “reaming or trimming operation.” Plaintiff’s witness identified 6 stones consisting of imitation star sapphires, rubies, emeralds, and opals. The star, which is at the bottom of each stone, is produced in a mold, and not by any cutting operation. The articles are either round or oval in shape and each of the stones has a bevel on the edge, this bevel being the basis of the statement of plaintiff’s witness that the stones have been cut. He testified that this bevel is cut by a wheel, “by an abrasive wheel of some sort,” and that “it is produced in order to give the edges a smooth effect, * * * a smoothing operation to take off the burrs.” The defendant’s witness testified that the bevel on these stones is produced either by an emery wheel or some other type of wheel, a wood block, or piece of metal, depending on the type and the quality of the glass, and that this operation does not produce a cut stone. When asked what he understood to be a ‘/cut stone” he answered: *403'‘It is but for the purpose of getting a certain effect on the stone. It is for the purpose of enhancing its appearance; for the purpose of accomplishing a certain .effect.”

There was no attempt made to establish a commercial meaning of the term “cut,” different from the ordinary common meaning, and the court therefore was compelled to resort to the dictionaries and encyclopedia. Prom a consideration of these authorities and the testimony the court was of the opinion that the purpose •of the bevelling operation is merely to finish off the stones and remove the burrs resulting from the molding process. The protests were therefore overruled and the action of the collector affirmed.
June 20, 1972

No. 72-23

#### Eddie J. Feldon, SGT, U. S. Air Force v Robert C. Seamans, Jr., Secretary of the Air Force; MAJ GEN John S. Samuel, USAF, Commander, Lowry Technical Training Center, Lowry AFB, Colorado; CAPT Lorne L. McGregor, Commander, 3415th Security Police Squadron, Lowry AFB, Colorado and CAPT Gary B. Jones, Confinement Officer, Lowry AFB, Colorado.

On consideration of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed in the above-entitled action, it appearing that all matters presented therein may more appropriately be addressed to the military judge of the court-martial to which the charges against petitioner have been referred for trial, it is, by the Court, this 20th day of June 1972,

ORDERED:

That said Petition be, and the same is hereby, dismissed. Hallinan v Lamont, 18 USCMA 652 (1968).
# C_2008175EN.01001201.xml

| 10.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/12

---

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION EPSO/AST/68/08

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

(2008/C 175/14)

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising open competition EPSO/AST/68/08 to recruit nurses (AST1) for a medical service or institution nursery.

The notice of competition is being published solely in English, French and German in Official Journal C 175 A of 10 July 2008.

Further details can be found on the EPSO website: http://europa.eu/epso

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

BENJAMIN HENDRICKS,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 2:11-cv-937

JUDGE SMITH

Magistrate Judge Deavers

JOHN DESMARAIS, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

On August 5, 2013, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and 

Recommendation recommending that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment be 

GRANTED and that judgment be entered in favor of Defendants. (See Report and 

Recommendation, Doc. 56). The parties were advised of their right to object to the Report and 

Recommendation. This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff Benjamin Hendricks’ 

Objections to the Report and Recommendation. (See Doc. 58). The Court will consider the 

matter de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

The objections present, once again, the issues presented to and considered by the 

Magistrate Judge in the Report and Recommendation. For the reasons stated in the Report and 

Recommendation, this Court finds that the objections are without merit.

The Report and Recommendation, Document 56, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. 

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and judgment shall be entered in 

Case: 2:11-cv-00937-GCS-EPD Doc #: 59 Filed: 08/27/13 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2

favor of Defendants. 

The Clerk shall remove Documents 46 and 56 from the Court’s pending motions list.

The Clerk shall remove this case from the Court’s pending cases list. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ George C. Smith__________________ 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case: 2:11-cv-00937-GCS-EPD Doc #: 59 Filed: 08/27/13 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
  1.
    
    The quarterly report on Form 10-Q of NeuStar, Inc. for the quarter ended
September 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    Information contained in such quarterly report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NeuStar,
Inc.
 November 10, 2006
    By:
    /s/ Jeffrey E. GanekJeffrey E. GanekChief Executive Officer November 10, 2006
    By:
    /s/ Jeffrey A. BabkaJeffrey A. BabkaChief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.02**

 

**Section 1350 Certification**

 

In connection with this annual report of Man AHL FuturesAccess LLC, (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this “Report”), I, Barbra E. Kocsis, Chief Financial Officer of Merrill Lynch Alternative Investments LLC, the manager of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1. This Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:   March 15, 2011     |                   |
|---------------------------------|------------------------|
|                            |                   |
| By                              | /s/   BARBRA E. KOCSIS |   |
| Barbra   E. Kocsis              |                   |
| Chief   Financial Officer       |                   |
| (Principal   Financial Officer) |                   |
|                                 |                        |  |

 

----
# C_2008061EN.01000102.xml

| 6.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4971 — MPC/VIGA-Villacero/MAN/Coutinho & Ferrostaal (JV))

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 61/02)

On 20 December 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4971. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4971. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
**
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Edward J. Gallivan, Jr.,certify that: 

 
 1.
I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form10-K of FS Energy and Power Fund; and 

 
 2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. 

 
Date: April 29, 2022
/s/ EDWARD J. GALLIVAN, JR.
**Edward J. Gallivan, Jr.****Chief Financial Officer****
No. 43026.

#### Protest 824967-G of Gehl Bros.

C. D. 259. Application by plaintiffs for rehearing granted.
# C_2008060EN.01000201.xml

| 5.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

4 March 2008

(2008/C 60/02)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,5206 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 156,78 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4502 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,7656 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,361 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5773 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 100,51 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8535 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,916 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 263,27 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6975 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,5322 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,7288 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 32,38 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,8482 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6304 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5035 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,8365 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8939 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1116 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 440,92 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,9466 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,8054 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,271 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 13 814,65 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8431 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,66 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 36,522 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,089 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,5356 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,2583 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,5206

JPY

Japanese yen

156,78

DKK

Danish krone

7,4502

GBP

Pound sterling

0,7656

SEK

Swedish krona

9,361

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5773

ISK

Iceland króna

100,51

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8535

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,916

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

263,27

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6975

PLN

Polish zloty

3,5322

RON

Romanian leu

3,7288

SKK

Slovak koruna

32,38

TRY

Turkish lira

1,8482

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6304

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5035

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,8365

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8939

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1116

KRW

South Korean won

1 440,92

ZAR

South African rand

11,9466

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,8054

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,271

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

13 814,65

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8431

PHP

Philippine peso

61,66

RUB

Russian rouble

36,522

THB

Thai baht

48,089

BRL

Brazilian real

2,5356

MXN

Mexican peso

16,2583

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
# C_2007235EN.01002001.xml

| 6.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/20

---

Action brought on 3 August 2007 — Vitro Corporativo, S.A. de C.V. v OHIM — VKR Holding (Vitro)

(Case T-295/07)

(2007/C 235/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Vitro Corporativo, S.A. de C.V. (Nuevo Leon, Mexico) (represented by: J. Botella Reyna, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: VKR Holding A/S

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

| — | Permit registration of the Community trade mark No 2669497 for goods in Class 19. |
| --- | --- |

—

Permit registration of the Community trade mark No 2669497 for goods in Class 19.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Vitro’ for goods and services in the Classes 1, 7, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 30, 35, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43 (application No 2669497).

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: VKR Holding A/S

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word marks ‘Vitral’: Community (No 651745); Danish (No 1956 1415 VR); German (No 725452); and British (No 1436897), for goods, inter alia, in Class 19, to which opposition was directed.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

inter alia

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld and application for goods in Class 19 refused.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal refused.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) given that the conflicting signs are phonetically and graphically distinct.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994,L 11, p. 1).

1

---
# C_2007155EN.01000803.xml

| 7.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/8

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 30 March 2007 — Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Wiener Landesregierung and Oberösterreichische Landesregierung

(Case C-169/07)

(2007/C 155/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Wiener Landesregierung and Oberösterreichische Landesregierung

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 43 EC (in conjunction with Article 48 EC) preclude the application of national legislation under which authorisation is required to set up a private hospital in the form of an independent outpatient clinic for dental medicine (dental clinic) and that authorisation is to be refused if, according to the stated purpose of the institution and the range of services envisaged, there is no need for the planned outpatient dental clinic having regard to the existing provision of care by established doctors working on a contractual basis with sickness funds, institutions owned by sickness funds and institutions contracted to sickness funds and by established dentists working on a contractual basis with sickness funds? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 43 EC (in conjunction with Article 48 EC) preclude the application of national legislation under which authorisation is required to set up a private hospital in the form of an independent outpatient clinic for dental medicine (dental clinic) and that authorisation is to be refused if, according to the stated purpose of the institution and the range of services envisaged, there is no need for the planned outpatient dental clinic having regard to the existing provision of care by established doctors working on a contractual basis with sickness funds, institutions owned by sickness funds and institutions contracted to sickness funds and by established dentists working on a contractual basis with sickness funds?

| 2. | Is the answer to Question 1 any different if the existing provision of care by outpatient clinics of public, private non-profit making and other hospitals working on a contractual basis with sickness funds is also to be included in the examination as to need? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the answer to Question 1 any different if the existing provision of care by outpatient clinics of public, private non-profit making and other hospitals working on a contractual basis with sickness funds is also to be included in the examination as to need?

---
Before the Second Division,

April 22, 1952

No. 56572.

protests 157712-K and 159462-K (New York).

#### American Express Co. and Ratsey & Lapthorn, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of piston hanks and ships’ thimbles the same in all material *455respects as the articles the subject of *Ratsey Lapthorn, Inc.*v. *United States*(26 Cust. Ct. 84, C. D. 1304), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### F. W. Woolworth Co. *v.*United States

No. 6358.

Entry No. 3576.

Invoice dated Birmingham, England, March 3, 1941.

Entered at Seattle, Wash., May 17, 1941.

(Decided September 19, 1946)

*Bharretis & Hillis*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Keefe, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the earthenware and chinaware here involved, and that such *310values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases. Insofar as the appeal relates to all other merchandise it is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ELIAS SANCHEZ

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee.

No. 4D2023

- 0195

[ July 3, 2024 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County; Hon. Andrew L. Siegel, Judge; L.T. Case No.

18015336CF10A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Benjamin H. Eisenberg,

Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for a ppellant.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

G ERBER

, C ONNER and A RTAU

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

Notice is hereby given that the Order revoking the following license is being rescinded by the Federal Maritime Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. chapter 409) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR part 515. 

*License Number:*                     017381NF.                 

*Name:*                     HPK Logistics (USA) Inc.                 

*Address:*                     18042 Cortney Ct., 2nd Floor, City of Industry, CA 91748.                 

*Order Published:*                     FR: 02/14/07 (Volume 72, No. 30, Pg. 7038).                 

Sandra L. Kusumoto, 

Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing.

 [FR Doc. E7-6854 Filed 4-10-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of China Herb Group Holdings Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Qiuping Lu, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge: 

  

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
Exhibit 13.1  CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of SinoTech Energy Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Guoqiang Xin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Date:
March 31, 2011By:
/s/Guoqiang XinName:
Guoqiang XinTitle:
Chief Executive Officer